EN BANC

G.R. No. 3298 February 27, 1907

FELISA NEPOMUCENO AND MARCIANA CANON,Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v.GENARO HEREDIA,Defendant-Appellant.
Ramon Salinas for appellant.
Hartigan, Rohde & Gutierrez for appellees.
CARSON, J.:
The complaint alleges that on the 24th of September, 1904, the defendant
had in his possession for administration 500 pesos, the property of Felisa
Nepomuceno, and 1,500 pesos, the property of Marciana Canon; that on
that day he entered into an agreement with them, in accordance with
which he was to invest this money in a mortgage, or conditional purchase
of good real estate, the investment to bring in 1 per centum per month,
and the principal to be payable in one year; and that the defendant has
failed to make the investment in accordance with his agreement and has
refused, and continues to refuse, to return the money.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrary chanrobles vi rtual law library
The following facts are fully established by the evidence of record, and are
substantially uncontroverted: That the defendant is the business adviser of
the plaintiff, Marciana Canon, and as such had in his hands 1,500 pesos
paid to him on her account on the 22d of September, 1904; that about the
same time Felisa Nepomuceno, the other plaintiff, had an unsecured debt
due her of 500 pesos from one Marcelo Leao; that on demand for security
her debtor proposed to give her a deed of conditional sale ( venta con
pacto de retro) to a certain tract of land, together with the buildings and
improvements thereon, in consideration of 2,000 pesos, she to be credited
with 500 pesos on the purchase price and that to advance the balance of
1,500 pesos; that knowing that the defendant had in his hands that
amount of money, the property of her coplaintiff, Marciana Canon, she
proposed to the said Marciana Canon that they make a joint investment in
the land; that together they discussed the proposition with the defendant
and later directed him to draw up the necessary documents; that a deed of
conditional sale of the land was executed on the 24th of September, 1904,
the vendor reserving the privilege of repurchasing the land at the end of
one year and obligating himself to make monthly payments in
considerations of the right to retain the land in possession in sufficient
amount to bring the plaintiffs' interest on their money at the rate of 17 per
centum per annum, and the vendees, the plaintiffs in this action, paying to
the vendor the sum of 1,500 pesos, cash, and discharging the above
mentioned credit of 500 pesos due the plaintiff, Felisa Nepomuceno; that
the title to the land under the deed was placed in the name of the
defendant, Genaro Heredia; and that a few days thereafter the defendant,
at the request of the plaintiffs, executed before a notary public a formal
memorandum of the fact that the plaintiff had furnished the money with
which the land had been purchased, said memorandum setting forth the
amount furnished by each and their proportionate interest in the
investment.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrary chanrobles vi rtual law library
The plaintiffs insists that the defendant took the deed to the land in his own
name without their knowledge or consent, but we think that the weight of
the evidence sustains the defendant's claim that he did so by their express
direction as their agent, and for their convenience, and that in any event
his action in this regard was ratified and approved by their request for and
acceptance of the memorandum setting out the facts and by their
continuance in the enjoyment of the profits of the transaction after the
purchase and without making any effort to have the title transferred in
their own names.chanrobl esvirtualawli brary chanrobles virtual law l ibrary
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant, without express authority from
them, undertook to extend, and did extend, the period within which the
vendor had the privilege or repurchase, but we think that this action in this
contention was also ratified, approved, and acquiesced in by the plaintiffs
and that in any event it can have no bearing on the merits of the question
submitted on appeal.chanroblesvirtualawl ibrary chanrobles vi rtual law library
More than a year after the transactions above set out, during which time
the vendor of the land continued to pay, and the plaintiff to receive, the
stipulated payments in consideration of the right to retain possession, a
cloud was cast on the title to the land by the institution of proceedings for
the recovery of possession by third parties, which proceedings are still
pending on appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance, and
the plaintiffs thereupon brought this action in which they are seeking to
recover from the defendant the whole of the amount of money invested,
with interest from the date of the investment, alleging with that purchase
of the land was not made in accordance with their instructions, or on their
account.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrary chanrobles vi rtual law library
The trial court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the full amount
claimed on the ground that while acting as their agent the defendant
invested their money in land to which the vendor had not a good and
sufficient title, contrary to the tenor of his instructions. On appeal the
plaintiffs ask that this judgment be affirmed, not on the grounds assigned
by the trial judge, but because, as they insists, their money was invested
by the defendant in his own name and on his account, and not as their
agent, or on behalf. The judgment can not be sustained on either
ground.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrary chanrobles vi rtual law li brary
It was clearly established at the trial that the defendant was acting merely
as the agent for the plaintiffs throughout the entire transaction; that the
purchase of the land was made not only with their full knowledge and
consent, but at their suggestion; and that after the purchase had been
effected, the plaintiffs, with full knowledge of the facts, approved and
ratified the actions of their agent in the premises. There is nothing in the
record which would indicate that the defendant failed to exercise
reasonable care and diligence in the performance of his duty as such agent,
or that he undertook to guarantee the vendors title to the land purchased
by direction of the plaintiffs.chanroblesvirtualawli brary chanrobles virtual law l ibrary
The judgment of the lower court should be, and is hereby, reversed, with
the costs against the plaintiffs in the first instance and without special
condemnation of costs in this instance. After the expiration of twenty days
let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter
let the record be returned to the court wherein it originated for execution.
So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawl ibrary chanrobles virtual law l ibrary
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Willard and Tracey, JJ.,concur.